Klinghoffer's hurt over at EN&V because I appear in Wikipedia and one of their guys is having issues there.

If Klinghoffer wanted to know about "notability" and Wikipedia, he could have consulted Wikipedia. Ironically, Klinghoffer bringing up my name (again) on EN&V adds another data point for my notability.

And Klinghoffer's sneering is, as usual, off the mark. I have a track record in marine biology that is itself not erased because I have changed my career path. Besides collaborating in published research, this includes professional recognition by the Society for Marine Mammalogy and professional involvement in a NOAA workshop on harm to cetaceans from Navy SONAR. It's almost as if Klinghoffer is assuming that whatever place you end up is the only place you ever could have been, which would probably discomfit any number of DI Fellows were it to be applied uniformly and without hypocrisy.

Additionally, if Klinghoffer had bothered to examine the "Talk" tab for my Wikipedia page, he might have seen that I had noted my change in employment there quite some time ago. It isn't as if I have been keeping it a secret known only to people who can visit LinkedIn. And property managers are noting my current employer, thanks. At least some small part of that has to do with my bringing evolutionary computation to analysis and forecasting there.

My notability in Wikipedia terms has more to do with my public opposition to religious antievolution efforts (and press and other notice of such, including the DI's own intermittent ragging on me) than with the details of what I did as a marine biologist or am doing now with real estate. As Klinghoffer notes with frustration, just being good at a job doesn't make someone necessarily notable. Lots of people do good to superb jobs in their chosen profession without ever coming near having "notability" in the Wikipedia sense. It's entirely fair to say that had I only stuck to marine biology, or real estate, or medical research, or photojournalism, or aerospace, or digital cartography, or statistics, or web design and programming, the odds are that, no, I wouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I'm proud of what I have accomplished in my marine biology career, which has spanned work on histology and epidemiology of fin whales, biosonar sound production in dolphins, hearing sensitivity in dolphins, white whales, and sea lions, and data integrity for records of manatee mortality, but I would have to say that that alone would not have made me notable for Wikipedia. (As mentioned previously, I have received recognition within the field of marine mammalogy, so whatever notability can be said to be attached to having your peers commend you for an award in innovation in research methods covering a two-year period is mine.) Because I have been an effective advocate for science in a public controversy, yes, that does makes a difference for notability. So the Wikipedia formulation of "X is a notable Y" isn't necessarily that X is notable solely for Y, but rather that X is a notable person (someone who verifiable sources have actually taken notice of) who does Y. Klinghoffer would like people to be incensed about that.

Klinghoffer can, though, look forward to Bechly becoming notable in exactly that way as he does publicly foolish -- and thus notable -- stuff for the Discovery Institute involving undermining science education. Bechly has a ways to go to catch up with DI Fellows who have broken that path before, including Dembski and Behe, whose pages at Wikipedia certainly meet anyone's standards of notability concerning exactly that public controversy, and their notability for Wikipedia is, just like mine, not based upon whatever degree of success they've had in the academic careers they have chosen (more for Behe than Dembski, certainly). The "top scientist" label Phil Johnson wanted to hang on them simply doesn't fit. In the meantime, I would think Bechly could be added to the DI C®SC page noting his affiliation, like Casey Luskin is noted there. It would be a start.

For my own involvement in the public controversy, I can point folks at TalkOrigins, Panda's Thumb, and The Austringer, in addition to this site. What is not up for debate is whether I have actually been a marine biologist, or any of the other things I have successfully turned my hand to over my lifetime.

My notability in Wikipedia terms has more to do with my public opposition to religious antievolution efforts (and press and other notice of such, including the DI's own intermittent ragging on me) than with the details of what I did as a marine biologist or am doing now with real estate. As Klinghoffer notes with frustration, just being good at a job doesn't make someone necessarily notable. Lots of people do good to superb jobs in their chosen profession without ever coming near having "notability" in the Wikipedia sense. It's entirely fair to say that had I only stuck to marine biology, or real estate, or medical research, or photojournalism, or aerospace, or digital cartography, or statistics, or web design and programming, the odds are that, no, I wouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I'm proud of what I have accomplished in my marine biology career, which has spanned work on histology and epidemiology of fin whales, biosonar sound production in dolphins, hearing sensitivity in dolphins, white whales, and sea lions, and data integrity for records of manatee mortality, but I would have to say that that alone would not have made me notable for Wikipedia. (As mentioned previously, I have received recognition within the field of marine mammalogy, so whatever notability can be said to be attached to having your peers commend you for an award in innovation in research methods covering a two-year period is mine.) Because I have been an effective advocate for science in a public controversy, yes, that does makes a difference for notability. So the Wikipedia formulation of "X is a notable Y" isn't necessarily that X is notable solely for Y, but rather that X is a notable person (someone who verifiable sources have actually taken notice of) who does Y. Klinghoffer would like people to be incensed about that.

Klinghoffer can, though, look forward to Bechly becoming notable in exactly that way as he does publicly foolish -- and thus notable -- stuff for the Discovery Institute involving undermining science education. Bechly has a ways to go to catch up with DI Fellows who have broken that path before, including Dembski and Behe, whose pages at Wikipedia certainly meet anyone's standards of notability concerning exactly that public controversy, and their notability for Wikipedia is, just like mine, not based upon whatever degree of success they've had in the academic careers they have chosen (more for Behe than Dembski, certainly). The "top scientist" label Phil Johnson wanted to hang on them simply doesn't fit. In the meantime, I would think Bechly could be added to the DI C®SC page noting his affiliation, like Casey Luskin is noted there. It would be a start.

For my own involvement in the public controversy, I can point folks at TalkOrigins, Panda's Thumb, and The Austringer, in addition to this site. What is not up for debate is whether I have actually been a marine biologist, or any of the other things I have successfully turned my hand to over my lifetime.

Blechly has his own entry in the German version of Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günter_Bechly) I guess self-written. The funny thing about him is the fact that he followed Darwinian paths in his published scientific work and organized an exhibition celebrating Darwins aniversaries back in 2009.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.

Hey, whatever you care to share about your work would be appreciated.

Insperperation it's 98 percent of work, something ID fails by a large margin except when it comes to bitching. All the chaffing in the barn down on the plantation results only in horse shit.

My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.

Hey, whatever you care to share about your work would be appreciated.

Insperperation it's 98 percent of work, something ID fails by a large margin except when it comes to bitching. All the chaffing in the barn down on the plantation results only in horse shit.

I rarely insperspire now. It's too cold in Trondheim, where I live now. Mind you, the view from my office isn't bad.At the start of the year I moved to Trondheim to become a professor of statistics. I think this means I can't be fired for staring out of the window all day.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

My take is that Bechly is nowhere near as notable as me(*), there isn't a wikipedia page about me, and quite frankly I don't see why there should be. He's got a moderate publication record, and was at a small local museum in Germany.

I also agree with Wes that his notability is based on his anti-ID work. It's also worth pointing out that he flagged his page for deletion a decade ago. So if it hasn't been deleted, then someone presumably thinks Wes is more notable than me. Which is fair enough.

(*) go on, stroke my ego by asking for my achievements.

Hey, whatever you care to share about your work would be appreciated.

Insperperation it's 98 percent of work, something ID fails by a large margin except when it comes to bitching. All the chaffing in the barn down on the plantation results only in horse shit.

I rarely insperspire now. It's too cold in Trondheim, where I live now. Mind you, the view from my office isn't bad.At the start of the year I moved to Trondheim to become a professor of statistics. I think this means I can't be fired for staring out of the window all day.

It can't be all that bad; I breathed both in and out there from my birth in 1930 and even on my visits there earlier this year. I think the beauty of the city and the landscape Byåsen more than compensate for the sub-subtropic climate.

I am quite familar with the building pictured; working at a place with one of the two Ozalid copying machines in the town in the late 1940's, I rode my bicycle between the shop in the city and up there every day with mostly students drawings in a tubular container on my back.

BTW, we did a lot of copying of drawings for entrepeneur Zager und Woerner for the U-boot bunker Dora2. They even gave us a brand new copying machine near the end of the war.